The Department of the Internet

The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 10, 2014 | Andy Kessler

[Alberta's Child]

The irony is that if "net neutrality" has a negative impact on the internet business model, then the whole business model will change and many traditional service providers will be out of business. Isn't that the case here? That would be the strongest argument against net neutrality.

The strongest argument in favor of net neutrality would be the pricing efficiencies of industries like public utilities that have been deregulated to a large degree. The price competition among different service providers (be it telephones, energy, etc.) operating on an "open access" network has made these things cheaper now than they have ever been.

[antidisestablishment]

Well, I remember paying hundreds of dollars for long distance before the benevolent government monopoly was broken. I also see huge taxes on current phone bills and other public utilities. Regulated markets do not belong in a free society, and in case you hadn’t noticed, the “poor” have better cell phone than many of us who are paying for their “emergency” Obamaphones.

[Alberta's Child]

As I said in my first post, you're using a terrible example when you cite long distance phone service -- because that case actually supports the other side of the argument. Part of the government-mandated process of deregulating the long distance telecommunications industry involved the imposition of "net neutral" regulations that required local carriers to provide equal access to all long distance carriers.

[VTenigma]

“There are compelling arguments on both sides of this issue, but history suggests that what is being proposed in terms of “net neutrality” is not necessarily a bad thing.”

Really, and many thought the Patriot Act was not necessarily a bad thing either. Please cite me the constitutional allowance for this type of regulation and more so this would be a camel nose tent thing, it might start out fairly innocuous but give it 20 yrs. Regulators got to regulate, enough government already.

Does the internet work, then leave it alone already, lets work on problems as they arise not try to fix problems before we know what they are and unleash a whole gamut of unintended consequences. And who trusts Obola to do what’s right for this country, you can be sure there is a hidden agenda here and it won’t favor freedom.

[davius]

obama: ‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam’

[Lake Living]

I agree! Remember the income tax was just going to be a tax on the rich and we know how that worked out.

[arthurus]

Porn and movies.

[Paladin2]

I pay more in gov’t fees and taxes on my landline than I do for the phone service.

[arthurus]

Can you actually imagine Congress defunding anything? With all the crying and wringing of hands about obamacare there was no suggestion in Congress that all they had to do is cut off the spigot. They profess to be terrified of a “shutdown” but that is just an excuse to keep the money flowing from the future- our kids.

[Alberta's Child]

The internet is one of the few areas of the economy where Federal regulation under the interstate commerce clause would apply perfectly. It's an industry that can't be regulated on a state level effectively because there is no correlation between state borders and telecommunications networks (this is why long-distance service was always subject to Federal oversight, not state).

Does the internet work, then leave it alone already, lets work on problems as they arise not try to fix problems before we know what they are and unleash a whole gamut of unintended consequences.

That's the strongest argument against ANY kind of regulation, in a case like this. The issue here is that problems related to bandwidth and access are already starting to crop up, which is why these service providers are looking to price their bandwidth to reduce net traffic.

[slowhandluke]

Not quite. The ISPs want to be able to charge me for my connection, charge the web sites for their connection, and then charge even more if I actually use that website, and charge the website yet more if that data traffic is more than trivial.

It'd be like the newspapers charging the advertisers more each time I actually read the ad, or used the coupons they print.

One way to make this go away is to disallow long term contracts with the ISPs. The ISPs want to charge extra for better access to their customers. With easy customer switching, they'd have to provide some combination of better pricing and better service to retain a customer base.

[Alex Murphy]

Net Neutrality in the newspaper business would be if publishers were told by government that anyone could have access to their printing presses and distribution system.

Which they wouldn't like:

"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
-- A. J. Liebling,

[Alberta's Child]

Really, and many thought the Patriot Act was not necessarily a bad thing either.

Right. I wasn't one of them, though. LOL.

[TurkeyLurkey]

They’re working fast and furious on ultimate control of internet and guns.

[arthurus]

I don’t think I have ever encountered anyone on FR arguing for government efficiency and control before. Interesting.

[Pietro]

Actually, the so-called "open access" was only brought about because the gov forced carriers to subsidize CLECs at below cost pricing. The result of which retarded infrastructure investment and slowed down the roll-out of an all fiber optic network.

After all, why should Verizon invest billions in fiber if the feds are going to allow their competition access to that same fiber below Verizon's cost? Likewise when the fed starts setting arbitrary pricing structures the market becomes distorted, like in healthcare, and all sorts of stupid, non-efficient business decisions follow.

But that's not even the strongest argument against NN. The strongest argument is keeping the keys as far away from the infinitly corrupt federal government as possible. Every single thing the feds are involved in is a cesspool of cronyism and politically suspect machinations. Hell, they've already strong-armed carriers for private information, imagine them now being the arbitrators of who, and more ominously who does not, get bandwidth allocations.

This thing should be DOA.

[jespasinthru]

The Federal Government has been desperate to gain control of the Internet ever since Obama was elected. It is the last true bastion of free speech on Earth. And it is composed of millions upon millions of highly imaginative innovators, free thinkers and entrepreneurs who don’t need the government to thrive. Everything that Big Government despises. That’s why the Obama administration wants to seize it and strangle the life out of it with regulation. Just another way to gain control of the populace.
Or as Ted Cruz said: “This is Obamacare for the Internet.”

[RayChuang88]

My biggest fear of Internet neutrality rules is that it may NOT guarantee free speech protections as defined by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

In short, the FCC has to clearly put into writing the stipulation that the government cannot regulate what can be legally uploaded to the Internet, especially given the extremely nebulous definitions of pornography and hate speech.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“After all, why should Verizon invest billions in fiber if the feds are going to allow their competition access to that same fiber below Verizon's cost?”

“Hell, they've already strong-armed carriers for private information, imagine them now being the arbitrators of who, and more ominously who does not, get bandwidth allocations.”

These are strong points, and bear repeating..

[VTenigma]

I’ll cede the point on the commerce clause grudgingly, but as to your point about perfectly, maybe not I think there may be a conflict on 1st amendment grounds.

Secondly about bandwidth issues, my impression is this is mostly about multi-media companies looking to protect their cable operations from streaming. My belief is this involves anti-trust issues and monopolies. These multi-media corporations should have never been allowed to dominate the marketplace as they have been.

All the lessons taught to us by Ronald Reagan have been lost or buried. We have allowed banks to become too big to fail and mega media corporations to control every aspect of the information complex leading to a defacto organ of progressive propaganda. This is the area that needs addressing long before the regulation of the internet.